Little Miss Sunshine Review

There is something about humor and road movies that seems to come hand in hand. Just think about, wherever we find a vehicle, a mismatched group of civilians, and an end goal we always in turn find quirky, hilarious humor. However, there is something else that seems to hitch a ride with road movies, and that's drama. It seems so strange, that a single genre can act as the perfect catalyst to bring two polar opposite emotions together in perfect balance. Which begs the question: why? How is it that a single genre can work so perfectly in doing one of the arguably hardest things to do in all of cinema? I the answer is quite simple. You see, there is always an element that is touching or sentimental about road movies that if not balanced with humor would become sappy and melodramatic. So in a way, one could say that it is by necessity that road movies excel at the balancing-act that is a drama-comedy. "Little Miss Sunshine" is the art of this balancing act seen thoroughly refined to perfection, a carefully crafted and heart warming story about the logistics of what makes a loser but moreover what makes a winner.

Like many great films, "Little Miss Sunshine" is quick to establish its narrative. In the beginning scene we see a young girl (Abigail Breslin) wearing thick glasses staring intently at a television screen. What is she doing? Studying. She's studying as to what should be her proper reaction when she is crowned Miss America. Next we see a person which we can safely assume is her father (Greg Kinnear.) A man who is giving a motivational pep-talk on how to be successful to a whopping crowd of about half dozen people, maybe less. At last we see a sunken eyed man who seems to be sulking in his own pain and misery (Steve Carrel, yes that's right, Steve Carrel.) From this we quickly know what "Little Miss Sunshine" is about: determination, dreams, and harsh reality.

The young girl we see gazing into the T.V. screen is miss Olive Hoover, beauty pageant enthusiast. She has apparently been wooing the audiences throughout New Mexico with her routine and now it seems as though she'll be able to compete at the nationally renowned Little Miss Sunshine Pageant. Though we never get to see her routine until the very end, she seems an unlikely contestant. She has no noteworthy facial or body features, a set of values that is sadly enforced onto young girls her age if they wish to compete in such competition, and wears thick lensed glasses. However, she is going nonetheless.

Her father is Richard Hoover, a somewhat narrow minded (perhaps only to shield himself from reality) man that believes through his "Nine Step Program" anyone can achieve their dreams. Despite the fact that he has been going at it for years now and has come to no avail.

The sunken-eyed sulk we saw earlier is her uncle. A man who was once the number one Proust Scholar in the united states. However due to a series of very, very unfortunate events, such as the loss of his homosexual love interest to his arch rival, he lost everything and attempted to kill himself. However he failed at that as well. Carrel's frank portrayal of this man that lives enamored in his pain is nothing short of noteworthy. There is a scene when Olive asks him what happened to his arms and he simply replies "Well, I tried to kill myself." However, even in all his character's gloom Carrel still manages to be funny, a sign of a truly talented and wise comic.

One could go on about the characters in this film for pages, however that would be redundant. The long and short of it is: all the characters have and/or had goals which they are/were trying to achieve.

As I stated earlier, "Little Miss Sunshine" lends itself to a tightly constructed narrative, featuring definitive lines, scenes, and themes and pitch perfect performances. The most important theme of the film is the push. From beginning to end there seems to be one to many obstacles in the way of Olive reaching her final goal. Starting off with a simple dilemma of the most economic way to get to the beauty pageant all the way to having to literally push the car until it is going fast enough to start off in fourth gear. Another motif is the family's protection of Olive. There is a scene in which her grandfather is telling her older brother to "fuck a lot of women" while she sits just a few feet away listening to her CD-player. When she takes off her headphones to ask them what they're talking about the grandfather simply replies, "Politics." There are scenes like this throughout the film that depict the entire family's, including the seemingly indefatigable father, concern for Olive's innocence and determination. Her childlike naivety (after all, she is a child) is something they all seem to admire and desire, however, cannot attain simply due to their cynicism. Not to say that they're cynics, just that there is something about adolescence and adulthood that gives way to that aspect of human nature.

Near the middle of the film Olive begins to notice a lot of what her family is doing for her and subsequently becomes worried about the pageant. She professes her fear to her grandfather saying that her father hates and losers, and if she loses her father will in turn hate her. Comforting her her grandfather kneels down beside her bed and says "You know what a loser is? A real loser is somebody that's so afraid of not winning they don't even try. Now, you're trying, right?" to which she replies "Yeah" "Well, then you're not a loser." If someone wanted to find the moral of this film they need look no further than this scene. There are very few times in cinema where a narrative can be brought together by something so simple and yet be so profound.

For all its intents, purposes, and use of mechanics "Little Miss Sunshine" is perfect film. It will tug your heart strings, hit your funny bone and leave you feeling profoundly moved and thoroughly entertained.

American History X Review

Since watching it last Friday I have taken my time in weighing the merits of “American History X.” It is without a doubt a good movie but is it really a great one? It is certainly a strong, visceral, and powerful film but does it got what it takes to go one step further? The answer is saddening, yet simple; no it doesn't. While it is now one of my personal favorites I can't deny the fact that it has its downfalls, all of which lie in its narrative and argument. Nevertheless, it is still a pertinent, eye opening and all around compelling film.

“American History X” centers itself on the stories of two brothers, Derek and Daniel vineyard. The film opens with a shocking beginning. While asleep in bed Danny overhears some African American gangsters trying to break into his brother's truck. Danny then wakes up Derek to tell him what's happening. Derek promptly and violently retaliates by shooting one to death and cracking the other's skull on the curb. After the gunshots are heard police officers and quick to arrive and arrest Derek, he is then charged and conviction with intentional man-slaughter and given four years of prison.

Hearing that some may think that Derek Vineyard is a thoughtless white supremacist. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Derek has reason behind his racism, whether that makes it justifiable or not is the purpose of the film. See, Derek wasn't always a gun totting, barbel pumping, angry, vengeful skinhead. There was a time in his life where he believed what the news stations told him and those times were before his firefighting father was shot to death by a black drug dealer while trying to put out a fire. Ever since then Derek had been serving under white supremacist over-lord Cameron Alexander. Through Alexander Derek became a prominent figure in the local skin-head gang. Recruiting other young, angry tweenaged men and boys Derek would lead acts of vandalism in order to intimidate local minorities. I can recall a pep-rally he gave before one act of vandalizing a local Korean man's store “On the Statue of Liberty it says "give me your tired your hungry, your poor..." well it's Americans who are tired and hungry and poor, and I say until you take care of that, close the fucking book!” This is just one of the many examples of Derek's thought-out sense of racism.

Danny seems to be the same way. He gets all A's in school, also like Derek, and is tired of the local gangs. Ever since Derek was locked up he has been slipping further into the grips of the local white supremacists. However, once Derek returned from prison he seemed to be trying to keep Danny away from them.

I have found that the main reason for “American History X's” quality stems from its character's performances. Edward Norton (Derek), who deservingly was nominated for an Oscar for the performance, plays a racist that despite how much we may disagree with his beliefs we can't help to feel his anger. Edward Furlong (Danny) plays a genuinely conflicted and surprisingly thoughtful young man. In addition to this, all members of the supporting cast thoroughly embody their characters.

Where “American History X” fails most is its narrative. It opens with a damn good thesis and possess many well done supporting paragraphs in regard to justifying Derek's and Danny's racism. However, when it comes to arguing the other side it stumbles. For an example, it gives much camera time (whether through interviews or breakfast table discussion) to Derek in developing his racism. But when it deconstructs through his prison sentence the film becomes lazy, as if it couldn't combat its own argument. However, seeing its conclusion I doubt if the film was ever even about racism. But rather uses it as a catalyst to discuss a far different subject: suppressed male-rage.

None of this however, can detract from the film's undeniable power. I found myself for the whole two hours staring at the screen, barely letting out a single blink. I guess it just bit off more than it could chew. Final Rating

Shutter Island Review

At times it truly seems as though Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio were made for each other. Note when I am saying that I'm not implying any homosexual undercurrents. Now, the reason for my conclusion about their fate came from the many interviews I watched and read before ever watching “Shutter Island.” See, Scorsese needs an actor that can harbor extreme emotions, such as male-inadequacy, guilt and anger. Leonardo DiCaprio's facial features are so strong that even though his expressions appear similar throughout films we cannot help but be compelled simply do to their power. In addition to this, Scorsese needs an actor that will shut the hell up and do what they're told, and when it comes to that DiCaprio excels. Quite to the contrary of what many people may believe, DiCaprio isn't a stuck-up hunk actor, in fact he despises that persona. Rather, he's an actor who can conjure up a wide range of emotions at his very whim, however he only does what his director tells him, making him prime material for someone as meticulous and brilliant as Scorsese. Now I bet you're wondering “Well that's nice, but what the fuck does this have to do with 'Shutter Island?'” Well, I say this because “Shutter Island” is a prime example of a strong actor with perfect emotional direction. Granted, it is in no way a good follow up to “The Departed” but is still an enthralling and emotionally compelling psychological thriller/detective movie with some refreshing retro-style noir.

“Shutter Island” follows the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels, a WWII veteran who's family died in a fire. His most recent assignment has been to investigate a case of a missing murderess on an infamous the infamous Shutter Island, home of the Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane. Danny, like many others, has heard of the mysterious Shutter Island but luckily has never had to go there, or so it seems. Danny quickly realizes that there's something strange going on at Ashecliffe, something that somehow ties into his past, such as his WWII experiences and the night his family burned to death in a fire. Like classic noir detectives Danny becomes enraptured and over-involved in his case, leading to him discovering things that he arguably may have been better of never knowing at all.

I feel nick-picky but I have to mention this: at times the drama of the film's music seems too overbearing. Granted, there are only a few scenes in which it transcends the moment and becomes melodramatic but for the most part the the music works perfectly with the situations. I guess the primary reason my stating that fact is that for a director as refined and calculated as Scorsese I expected more. Now, others may find those moments stylized and enjoyable but I see them as immature and at times laughable. Overall, the good outweighs the bad though.

Seeing as I air on the side of cowardice when it comes to movies I'm not quite sure if I can objectively state how frightening this movie can be. Like any good psychological thriller there are a lot of surprising, surrealistic, pop-out-and-scare-you moments intermittent between Danny's slow discovery of the secrets of Ashecliffe. However, when it comes to you viewer discovering along with Danny it ultimately fails. The twist at the end was as I predicted it to be, only the process to finally discovering that twist was rather disappointing. With a good beginning and freaky psychological hallucination/dream sequences the film makes a strong start. The questions quite appropriately pile on one after another until we're brimming with anticipation. But then the story becomes lazy and spills out everything at the very end through a single conversation. I'm not sure if this is Scorsese's (the director) , Kalogridis and Knight's (the ones who adapted the screenplay), or Lehane's (the one who wrote the novel) fault, but the ending is just so damn lazy. Now, if I were to say I didn't enjoy it that would be a lie, just that there was so much potential for the ending and so much done right in the earlier portions of the film that it just felt stale. Nevertheless, it is still and thoroughly enjoyable, strongly acted, and even emotionally compelling film. I just expected more from the dynamic duo that is Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio.

28 Days Later Review

It indeed seems at times we live in the most cynical of ages. We often look upon the human race as a walking, talking, autonomous, machine that is without mercy, compassion, or proactive though. A machine that marches through this world, hurting itself, killing itself, and committing crimes against itself and the entirety of the planet. It is often remarked upon that we are one of the only, if not the only, species on our planet that kills out of pure emotional impulse. "28 Days Later" gives us an unrelenting, and somewhat cynical look at the most dangerous of human emotions; rage.

"28 Days Later" opens to a experimental chimp laboratory in Cambridge. We then see angry animal rights activists sneakily break their way into the laboratory. They then find hysterical chimps running back and forth in confined, Plexiglas cages. As they set to freeing the animals an unknowing scientist walks in and catches them in the act. "No! Please stop." he pleads "The chimps are infected!" "With what?" the activists demand "Pure, rage." he answers. Dismissing the scientist's warning they set a chimp free, immediately it attacks and infects both the activists and the scientist. The film then cuts to a man laying in a hospital bed, twenty eight days after the initial infection.

Jim is the name of the man in the hospital bed. Twenty eight days earlier he had been in a bicycle accident that ironically saved his life. Unwittingly he wonders the streets of a now deserted London shouting hello. There is a very despairing and intense scene in which he enters an abandoned church, it is here that he has his first encounter with what the survivors call "the infected." Quickly realizing that these are no normal human beings, Jim runs for his life. It is by shear luck that he comes across some properly prepared survivors. Taking him to their small refuge in the London underground they explain to him the current state of England.

"28 Days Later" makes many a wise choice when it comes to presenting its story. As I stated in my review of "Zombieland" it's extremely hard to make even a mildly compelling zombie movie. This is due simply to the fact this genre has been tread over more times than the Hollywood walk of fame. There is barely an original bone in the genre's body but somehow "28 Days Later" makes it seem like something completely fresh. For an example, most zombie movies the infection, curse, ect. Takes anywhere between a few days to a few weeks to take full effect. The disease in "28 Days Later" however, takes a maximum of twenty seconds to take full effect. This makes for a harsh, brutal, killing of any infected character and no stereotyped hiding that one is infected.

The second wise choice it makes is the design of its characters. Instead of having an array of characters pick off as it slowly advances it gives us a small group of four, making each death unwanted, and emotionally wrenching, and I mean that in a good way. In addition to this, some of the characters are very cynical of their situation. Take the female side-protagonist Selena for an example. She is, smart, hard headed, and a realist. She gives no chances for anyone lagging behind and often remarks that "living is as good as it gets." However, there is optimistic contrast to her bleak personality.

With a hard hitting beginning we expect to film to run downhill as soon as it gets far enough to have a contrived romance between Jim and Selena, and thank goodness "28 Days Later" isn't that stupid. Throughout the entire film Selena's relationship with Jim remains positively platonic, less can be said about Jim though. However, he rarely ever manifests his feelings, which is a good thing.

If there is a single major criticism I have for Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" it would be this. The very ending felt contrived. There is a archetype of optimism being shattered by harsh reality, but the end seems to contradict to whole narrative the film had been so carefully crafting. Disappointed with the natural ending I watched the alternate and found myself a world more satisfied. However, I was still able to remind myself that in the other ending, everyone was happy and fine and therefor it just felt like a bleak "what if" instead of a harsh reality.

Moon Review

There is a fine line between pure brilliance and exceedingly interesting. Moon flirts with this boundary so much that even now as write I'm not quite sure if it has crossed the line, or stopped short on the side of brilliance. Nevertheless, it is still once of the most under appreciated films of the year and a golden addition to this rich and fruitful year for science fiction. Not to mention, a breakthrough performance by Sam Rockwell and an incredible directorial debut by the son of David Bowie. I guess not all celebrity children are talentless hacks after all?

Like many great science fiction films, "Moon" opens to the infinitely expansive and seemingly silent vacuum of space. It then slowly makes it's way into the cramped and claustrophobic confines of a space station. Perhaps it was because I was watching this on a Saturday morning, a time in which I am never fully alert, that I found this somewhat cliched beginning to be so damn interesting. Or maybe it there is something about space that time and time again can hold our undivided interest. Maybe it's the mystery surrounding it. Like the ocean it seems to go on forever, only in this case it actually does. And as we all know, where there is infinite, shrouded room, there in turn lays infinite possibility. But again like many a good sci-fi psychological thrillers Moon does not try to fill outer space's mystery with it's ideas, rather it plays off the vacuum's noir. Starting us off with questions, and answering them to only a certain extent where we're satisfied enough to not ask any further, but still sit in wonderment and awe of the furtive ambiguity.

However, if we are so awed by the infinite possibility of space, why then are we always satisfied looking at through such a tiny and truly confined area like a space station? It is without a doubt the foil factor. Normally foils come in the form of a character contrasting another, like Toby did with Sweeney in Burton's stylize interpretation of "Sweeney Todd" or like Dustin Hoffman's character did with Steve Mcqueen's in the prison-break classic "Papillon." However, they can also be found in the case of environments. As for the case of "Moon," the tiny space station extenuates the infinite expanse surrounding it. Hearing all of this you may be quite surprised to learn that moon isn't about space exploration, but rather is a character study.

One may think the tone the film so furtively sets is too greatly contrasting to something as personal and detailed as a character study, but in this case it works. You see, there is a great deal a mystery regarding the central character Sam Bell (yes, that's Rockwell.) We first see him as a man teetering on the brink of sanity, equipped properly with the ugly Hawaiian T-shirt and the bushy beard that cries "I've been stranded on a tropical island with no human contact for over six months." He is however elated because he only has two weeks left of the solitary lifestyle of a lunar mine supervisor. But then, the scene cuts and we see him looking quite sane, with short hair and no facial to be found. Is it retrospective? Is it day before he's leaving? Doesn't seem like either, then what's happening? You don't know, and neither does he, but Sam Bell seems quite determined to get the answers.

If I had to choose between calling "Moon" an interesting sci-fi indie or an brilliant directorial debut, I would have to side with the latter. Ducan Jones had apparently written the part specifically for Sam Rockwell, which is why I presume it was acted out so well. Like this year's mega-blockbuster "Avatar" it's slight unoriginality withholds it from greatness. However, I couldn't imagine this film being made any better than it was.

Zombieland Review

Zombies lost their ability to inspire fear in our hearts long ago. What once were walking, unstoppable undead creatures have now evolved into scientifically contrived blood bags waiting to have the bullets of their prey rip through their putrid flesh. It is quite a surprise to me that it took until 2004 for films to start overtly parodying these undead idols. Granted, zombies, along with vampires, werewolves and mummies, have long been the laughing stock of the primitive world of cartoons. However, these were more slapstick and simple parodies and much less outright with their satyr. “Shaun of the Dead” ushered in a new era of genre parody, one that thankfully hasn’t been touched by the absurd and raunchy “movie” series. “Zombieland” is yet another golden addition to this sophisticated and delightfully gory genre.

The story of “Zombieland” is quite wisely kept simple. It follows the path of four survivors of the U.S.A’s most recent zombie apocalypse. This party consists of one neurotic, phobia ridden protagonist (Jesse Eisenberg), one gun toting, chainsaw-wielding, ass-kicking, hard-ass (Woody Harrelson), a smokin’ hot, yet surprisingly useful, chick (Emma Stone) and her younger sister (Abigail Breslin). What I mean by its story “is quite wisely kept simple” is that it doesn’t showcase it. Their point of final arrival isn’t the theme of the film. Rather their path to it, and how many quirky characteristics they can reveal and zombie movie stereotypes they can fit in along the way, takes center stage.

The main character, Columbus (as in Columbus, Ohio. don’t worry, the movie explains why) seems the most unlikely survivor for an event as destructive as the zombie apocalypse. He explains to us that there are two reasons he has been able to live this long. First and foremost is his nifty set of rules, one of the most important of which is cardio. This list of personal laws encompasses a wide range of survival tactics from common sense activities like fastening your seatbelts to the double tap rule (why be so stingy with your bullets when one more clean shot to the head can ensure your victory?) The second reason he says is that he “always avoided people like they were zombies even before they were zombies,” in other words he had very little emotional attachment to the world when it plunged into darkness.

If I had to analogize my experience of watching “Zombieland” it would go something along the lines of watching a canvas with preset lines for its painters come to life as its artists carefully colored them in. In other words, “Zombieland” relies heavily upon its cast for bringing to fruition its brilliant and hilarious seeds. Jesse Eisenberg plays Michael Cera better than Michael Cera himself. Mr. Harrelson sports a more than adequate bad-ass and Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin play the women (more technically woman, as Miss Breslin is only thirteen.) Nearly all the characters, aside from Columbus, are stereotypical caricatures of zombie-apocalypse-survival characters. However, due to the high caliber of acting they’re ironically refreshing. This of course cannot completely be attributed the actors themselves as there are many redeeming traits in the writing of their characters. For an example, Woody Harrelson’s chainsaw-toting badass is made significantly more entertaining by his strange obsession with Twinkies. There are many more instances of this yin-yang balancing of stereotypes versus quirky characteristics.

All things considered, “Zombieland” is a pretty good film. It is without a doubt another brilliant addition to the small sub-genre it belongs to and in my opinion better, if only in the sense that it is smarter, than “The Hangover.”